Taxing the Wealthy Kills Jobs Is a Myth, If Not a Whopper

wanderingbear said:
Taxing the corperations will not cause one job to be lost,but If we tax the wealty we can use that to fund giveing jobs to those who really need it.
The biggest mistake that Obama made wasnt tn creating the stimulas was that he gave all that money to the wrong people.The only thing the rich will do with it is stash it in their bank account.If the money was given to the poor,they would have used it and expanded the economy.
Click to expand...

Taxes = expense; when expenses go up businesses have a couple of choices. They can raise prices to compensate, but depending on elasticity of demand for their goods/services may not be able to. Or they can try to cut expenses elsewhere. The easiest to control is labor inputs.

Even if your thesis that the rich only save their money in bank accounts is true (it's not) it wouldn't be a bad thing. Why you may ask? Well more money in the bank means more capital available for banks to loan out so the economy can grow.

Your economic ignorance is not as stunning as the fact that more and more people share it.

This country can survive four more years of Maobama, but it can't survive much longer with idiots like you voting.
 
wanderingbear said:
Taxing the corperations will not cause one job to be lost,but If we tax the wealty we can use that to fund giveing jobs to those who really need it.
The biggest mistake that Obama made wasnt tn creating the stimulas was that he gave all that money to the wrong people.The only thing the rich will do with it is stash it in their bank account.If the money was given to the poor,they would have used it and expanded the economy.
Click to expand...

You sound like a 6-year-old trying to explain economics. Corporations are not monster zombies lurking in the dark, they are groups of like-minded individuals with a common objective. That objective is to produce a product or service and make a profit. You can't tax corporations, you can only tax consumers. Corporations will simply recalculate formulas, and their consumers will pay whatever extra tax you levy. If it's not possible to increase the price to pay the tax, due to market competition or mandated price freezes or whatever, they will eliminate jobs.

Second, as I said before, we don't tax wealth. We tax income earned. And we're not going to "use that money" because there won't be any. Whenever we increase the tax rate for high income earners, it produces fewer high income earners and less revenue. So instead of imagining where you'll spend the extra money, you should be thinking of how you will replace the money that isn't going to be realized. And what world is it that we "give jobs to those who really need it?" Jobs aren't created to give to people who need them, that isn't the purpose of creating a job.

You were right about Obama giving the stimulus to the wrong people, a lot of it went to Chinese people in China, or to European car companies, some more of it went to his political contributors. What it didn't do was stimulate the economy. Yes, it would have been a lot better if the stimulus had simply given every taxpayer a rebate check for $4,000. But now, this is like saying the really expensive fireworks you bought, would have been more entertaining if you had lit the fuses, rather than putting them in you shower. We did the wrong thing, the money is gone now, we can't get a do-over.

Giving unearned money to "the poor" only creates more consumerism. More dollars are there for the corporations to earn through selling goods and services, which means they can realize more profits. But the problem is, it's an artificial condition you've created, and when the money runs out, the same corporations will realize a decline in profits. They may have already given bonuses and raises, so now, they will have to either raise prices or cut jobs, so that the decreased revenue doesn't affect profits or the bottom line. You've actually caused more of a problem, and you didn't solve the problem you tried to fix. On the other hand, when the high income earners are given tax breaks, they often use the extra money to create new business or expand and existing business, and jobs are created. Every job that is created, will pay income tax, which means we see more tax revenue. Increased production means more is available for consumers, and this results in larger profit margins, which again, creates more revenue in taxation.

But when you have the mentality of a 6-year-old, everything is a Robin Hood movie!
 
Dixie said:
You sound like a 6-year-old trying to explain economics. Corporations are not monster zombies lurking in the dark, they are groups of like-minded individuals with a common objective. That objective is to produce a product or service and make a profit. You can't tax corporations, you can only tax consumers. Corporations will simply recalculate formulas, and their consumers will pay whatever extra tax you levy. If it's not possible to increase the price to pay the tax, due to market competition or mandated price freezes or whatever, they will eliminate jobs.

Second, as I said before, we don't tax wealth. We tax income earned. And we're not going to "use that money" because there won't be any. Whenever we increase the tax rate for high income earners, it produces fewer high income earners and less revenue. So instead of imagining where you'll spend the extra money, you should be thinking of how you will replace the money that isn't going to be realized. And what world is it that we "give jobs to those who really need it?" Jobs aren't created to give to people who need them, that isn't the purpose of creating a job.

You were right about Obama giving the stimulus to the wrong people, a lot of it went to Chinese people in China, or to European car companies, some more of it went to his political contributors. What it didn't do was stimulate the economy. Yes, it would have been a lot better if the stimulus had simply given every taxpayer a rebate check for $4,000. But now, this is like saying the really expensive fireworks you bought, would have been more entertaining if you had lit the fuses, rather than putting them in you shower. We did the wrong thing, the money is gone now, we can't get a do-over.

Giving unearned money to "the poor" only creates more consumerism. More dollars are there for the corporations to earn through selling goods and services, which means they can realize more profits. But the problem is, it's an artificial condition you've created, and when the money runs out, the same corporations will realize a decline in profits. They may have already given bonuses and raises, so now, they will have to either raise prices or cut jobs, so that the decreased revenue doesn't affect profits or the bottom line. You've actually caused more of a problem, and you didn't solve the problem you tried to fix. On the other hand, when the high income earners are given tax breaks, they often use the extra money to create new business or expand and existing business, and jobs are created. Every job that is created, will pay income tax, which means we see more tax revenue. Increased production means more is available for consumers, and this results in larger profit margins, which again, creates more revenue in taxation.

But when you have the mentality of a 6-year-old, everything is a Robin Hood movie!
Click to expand...

I wish people would stop arguing about tax cuts on the grounds of creating jobs or not creating jobs. It is really a moral issue about property rights
 
G r I n D said:
dixie, this isn't a flaw in their strategy, it's part of their plan.

They can spend time grabbing money that isn't theirs, and then say "hey guuuuyyys, it's not enough! now we need to do a wealth tax!"

the money grabbers will try to shake out every penny they can. count on it.
Click to expand...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Wealth is property, in order to seize it, they will need probable cause and a warrant, unless they plan to repeal the 4th amendment.

But you are right, liberals will never have enough money to do the things they think they can do. Partly because what they try to do, doesn't work, like the stimulus, but also because they are chasing problems that can never be completely fixed. 500 years from now, even if we implement every single 'plan' the liberals have (pretending we could do this), we would still have the exact same problems we have today. The poor would still be poor, the rich would still be rich, corporations would still make profits, and economics would still be economics.
 
FactsRStubborn said:
I wish people would stop arguing about tax cuts on the grounds of creating jobs or not creating jobs. It is really a moral issue about property rights
Click to expand...

You're right because jobs are only created when there is a need for them. Cutting taxes doesn't produce a need for any job, that I am aware of. But now, what does often happen is, tax cuts create more entrepreneurship, which in turn, will eventually result in more jobs being created. The tax cuts didn't create the jobs, the results of the tax cut did. And the same can be said for tax increase. Corporations will absorb the increase and the result will be, they find ways to offset the cost by raising prices, and if that can't be done sufficiently, they may eventually eliminate some jobs... the tax increase didn't kill jobs, the results of the tax increase killed jobs.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the left is headed toward the Gelded Age.....
Click to expand...

It is funny how you always pick the truest statement in any thread and try to attack it with your lies.

It isn't working for the GOP, and it isn't working for you.

If your freaking message is so good, the truth about it should more than suffice.
 
christiefan915 said:
The Gilded Age.
Click to expand...


You've gone a little too far......it was after that 'Guilded Age' that we had the

"Progressive Era"......1890 thru the 1920's

Harrison (R) 1889-
Grover Cleveland (D) 1893 -
William McKinley (R) 1897-
Teddy Roosevelt (R/P)
Howard Taft (R)
Wilson (D)
Harding (R)
Calvin Coolidge (R) -1929

6 Republicans and we even survived 2 Dems. in that era.....thats history.
 
bravo said:
You've gone a little too far......it was after that 'Guilded Age' that we had the

"Progressive Era"......1890 thru the 1920's

Harrison (R) 1889-
Grover Cleveland (D) 1893 -
William McKinley (R) 1897-
Teddy Roosevelt (R/P)
Howard Taft (R)
Wilson (D)
Harding (R)
Calvin Coolidge (R) -1929

6 Republicans and we even survived 2 Dems. in that era.....thats history.
Click to expand...

Calvin Coolidge lowered marginal tax rates and ushered in the boom in the 20s. I guess the libturds don't know why they were called the roaring 20s
 
FactsRStubborn said:
Taxes = expense; when expenses go up businesses have a couple of choices. They can raise prices to compensate, but depending on elasticity of demand for their goods/services may not be able to. Or they can try to cut expenses elsewhere. The easiest to control is labor inputs.

Even if your thesis that the rich only save their money in bank accounts is true (it's not) it wouldn't be a bad thing. Why you may ask? Well more money in the bank means more capital available for banks to loan out so the economy can grow.

Your economic ignorance is not as stunning as the fact that more and more people share it.

This country can survive four more years of Maobama, but it can't survive much longer with idiots like you voting.
Click to expand...

I know quite a bit about the economy.I just dont subcribe to the Reaganist trickle down theroy.
 
Taxes always kill jobs. But there is some optimum level that creates the most efficiency, provides for a social safety net and the necessary infrastructure. Where that is is debatable and it may be above current rates.

More taxes is not the real answer. How about we stop taxing the poor and middle class to give money to the wealthy. It kills jobs.
 
bravo said:
The end of WW II.....a Republican in the White House.....2 terms....women in the work force like never before, etc...
Click to expand...

The whole of the 'western world' was rebuilding. The USA had had no invasion of its territory and suffered no damage (not counting the war machine). They were ideally placed to take full advantage of the rebuilding of Europe. It would have had very little to do with party politics so that is a launch you cannot ride in, Jack.
Women were, indeed, part of the workforce throughout N America and Europe. They were an important part of the war effort. Once again no real connection with any political party.
 
Dixie said:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Wealth is property, in order to seize it, they will need probable cause and a warrant, unless they plan to repeal the 4th amendment.

But you are right, liberals will never have enough money to do the things they think they can do. Partly because what they try to do, doesn't work, like the stimulus, but also because they are chasing problems that can never be completely fixed. 500 years from now, even if we implement every single 'plan' the liberals have (pretending we could do this), we would still have the exact same problems we have today. The poor would still be poor, the rich would still be rich, corporations would still make profits, and economics would still be economics.
Click to expand...

The article I posted is written by Walter M. Cadette, an economist (JP Morgan, retired) and formerly senior scholar at the Jerome Levy Economics Institute at Bard College. He is not some loony lefty but somebody who has worked on Wall Street.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top